Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Kire1975 reported by User:AlanS (Result: Resolved)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2]
[3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:
This article has 1RR in place. I invited Kire to self-revert and wouldn't have bothered coming here if they did. AlanS^talk 03:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The controversial statement of fact relating to a living person has been put back. I was unaware of the 1RR rule.

User:AlanS has made no attempt to resolve this dispute on the article talk page. The link posted above claiming he did is a link to my user talk page. It is the middle of the night where I am. He waited an hour and a half before taking it to this noticeboard. This is not a reasonable amount of time for me to see it, much less respond appropriately as I have done. Kire1975 (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your talk page giving you the opportunity to self-revert. That is dispute resolution. It is your responsibility to be aware of editing restrictions which apply to each article. AlanS^talk 09:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm WP:NOTPERFECT.Is the matter resolved now? Kire1975 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A self-revert is a straight undo of your previous revert. Not carrying on pushing a content dispute. AlanS^talk 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The DailyBeast article is not reliable. A new consensus has been brought up on the talk page by a third party and the material you want to keep has been removed. You made no attempt to seek consensus about it before coming here to scold me. Thank you to whomever marked this matter resolved. Kire1975 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There being no consensus on reliability is not the same as being "not reliable". If you don't understand this difference then I really need to ask questions. You can go on about talk if you like, but the fact that you made no attempt to go to talk prior to edit warring speaks for itself. AlanS^talk 14:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the matter was not already decided by third parties on the talk page, I would have been happy to bring it there. WP:AGF please. Kire1975 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you tagged my talk page with advising me WP:AGF, I might very well do the same to you for your words above if I was so inclined. AlanS^talk 01:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from this discussion and the edit history that this matter has been resolved by the users involved, and frankly that's the best outcome. Alan should have waited a little longer given the time difference noted. But I also find Kire's claim to have been unaware of the 1RR restriction straining credulity as well ... it's mentioned in that big yellow box with the stop sign that pops up when you open the edit window; you have to scroll past it to edit, in fact, by design. Yes, Kire, I can see from your userpage that you have an eye condition that adversely affects your vision. But notwithstanding that you have been able to edit here for 17 years, therefore I think you reasonably should have been expected to see that notice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for this to pass, however while it may have been the middle of the night where Kire is (It was just before lunch time where I am when I left the message on their talk page inviting them to self revert), the message I left inviting them to self-revert was a mere 41 minutes after their second revert so I find their assertion that they didn't have time to self-revert before I came here to be interesting. In any case what is done is done. AlanS^talk 01:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy you can point me to about this "responsibility" issue? I will pin it to the top of my user talk page. In the meantime, moving the notice onto the main page if you want everyone to see it is a better solution than insulting my medical problems and assuming bad faith. Kire1975 (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read any assumption of bad faith at all. It's a statement of fact that there is an additional notice that comes up when trying to edit that page. I would assume you read all notices when editing? AlanS^talk 13:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said I didn't read it. ~~You are assuming bad faith.~~ Please stop. Kire1975 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you've had the AMPOL CT aware notice on your talk page for over two years, it is assumed you are aware of pages you edit that have AMPOL editing restrictions. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assume anything you want, but don't assume I'm lying when I say I wasn't aware of it. The ~~offensive~~ WP:QUESTIONABLE material was put back as soon as I was made aware of it. Kire1975 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kire1975, I don't wish to relitigate anything to do with edit warring, but where do you get the idea that the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? TarnishedPath^talk 09:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That question has been answered multiple times above. This matter is closed. Seek consensus on Talk:Andy Ngo or somewhere else if you are legitimately unsure. Kire1975 (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care about the source, however I'm interested in your interpretation having read WP:QUESTIONABLE myself. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are casting aspersion. I advise you to strike your statement. AlanS^talk 01:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Kire1975 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou @Kire1975. AlanS^talk 04:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This matter was marked resolved three days ago. I am formally requesting that someone with the authority to do so close this matter to further editing. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marcelus reported by User:134.192.8.17 (reporter also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19)(Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Determining Nationality: Is duress a factor?

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:
First EW diff falsely denied that consensus had not been achieved. Despite reporter's noted efforts, Marcelus did not engage in a talk discussion about whether consensus had actually been achieved.

Second EW diff inappropriately attempted to enforce WP:STABLE on an edit that the reporting user had RFE'd and explained. After the second and third revert, Marcelus did not participate in the discussion, and did not explain the content basis for the desired version.

During discussions on the talk page, Marcelus derailed the discussion by accusing other editors of WP:BADFAITH. (diff, diff, diff, diff, reporter's warning diff).

Marcelus has previously been blocked twice for WP:EW(first block, second block). Just like the present dispute involving Sergei Bortkiewicz, the first block also involved a dispute over the ethnicity/nationality of a biography subject. As this is a third time offense, the reporter requests that Marcelus serve a three month block from editing Sergei Bortkiewicz, Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Determining Nationality: Is duress a factor?.

Finally, Marcelus responded by questioning the reporter's use of WP:GOODSOCK. The reporter welcomes an administrative review of the reporter's activity, and this may be necessary to assuage the reported user's concerns. Public networks often use different IP addresses, and the reporter has made an effort to disclose all the IP addresses they have used on this discussion. WP:GOODSOCKs cannot always use a constant IP address.

(also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 134.192.8.17 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing by comment: I recommend semi-protecting this article for few months to deal with problematic IP edits and move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on what "problematic IP edits" means.

(also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor also unilaterally made edits to the Sergei Bortkiewicz article twice (see [7] and [8]) before any consensus was established. On the former, their edit summary misleadingly explained that the edit was a result of consensus ("It appears that there is consensus in the talk to no longer mention Bortkiewicz as Russian in the lead"), even though the ongoing discussion at the article's talk page demonstrates that there is none. IP user also opened a new topic today on this same issue elsewhere and unhelpfully did not inform editors participating at the Bortkiewicz talk page discussion. As for accusations and insinuations of bad faith, the IP editor has made a number themselves including against me. All of this suggests that they may be WP:NOTHERE and are more concerned with WP:RGW. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My RFE asserting that "It appears that there is consensus in the talk to no longer mention Bortkiewicz as Russian in the lead" came 29 minutes after @CurryTime7-24 wrote in the talk, "In other words, if the lead merely mentioned that he was Austrian or omitted mention of his citizenships altogether, that would be OK too."

One minute before I opened the new topic at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, I wrote in Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz: "I am consulting Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Biography for an opinion on whether duress can be a factor in determining the nationality of a biography subject." Maybe I could have formatted that notice better, but perhaps someone can guide me to the proper Wikipedia policy on this.

@CurryTime7-24, please cite the diffs of the specific edits in which you believed I accused another user of bad faith.

(also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Looking at other potential problems here, w/r/t blocking or protecting. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification: Does this mean that the proper recourse in this situation against a revert without discussion is to revert back? This would seem like the natural consequence. The reason I did not revert previously was because WP:3RR says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." However, if a revert without discussion is not considered a rule violation, this makes me wonder whether the proper course of action would be to just revert back. On the other hand, I'm concerned that reverting back would increase tensions and lead to accusations of gaming the system, which is exactly the situation I was trying to avoid by bringing my report here instead of just making the revert. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what IP claims, I am an active participant in discussions on t/p regarding what nationalities should appear in the lead. Contrary to what IP claims, a consensus has not been established to recognise Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian and not to recognise him as Russian. The explanation of his last edit that I reverted and referred to by IP appeared on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, so outside the ongoing discussion and included statements such as: I cannot take seriously Marcelus argument that multiple sources describing Bortkiewicz as 'Ukrainian-born' or listing 'Ukraine' next to his name do not consider him Ukrainian. So IP chose to unilaterally ignore my objections that none of the sources identify Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian, but only say that he was born in Ukraine or lived there, which obviousely isn't the same thing. My 'third revert' concerned a completely different article (Bortkiewicz) and was a consequence of the 'second revert', the explanation of both is contained in the description of the 'second revert'. During discussions on the talk page, Marcelus derailed the discussion by accusing other editors of WP:BADFAITH, this is a rather dishonest description of my negative verification of the sources cited by user Mzajac (talk · contribs), which certainly wasn't me derailing the discussion. And finally my questioning the reporter's use of WP:GOODSOCK, was simply asking whose sock is the IP, what's more I'm still curious about the answer.

Basically, I find quite shocking and deeply disappointing that IP is trying to exclude me from a discussion that is not going his way. However, it reinforces my belief that my edits in the article and participation in the discussion itself were necessary and appropriate. Marcelus (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you're welcome to defend yourself on this page. But as for the content dispute, I wish you had raised your points in either Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Determining Nationality: Is duress a factor?. In the time after I published my edit that you reverted, you never posted to the talk page. You only posted to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Determining Nationality: Is duress a factor? once, to redirect users back to the talk page, but then you did not thereafter post on the talk page. You still have not. As for your claims about the sources that describe Bortkiewicz' Ukrainian ties, you abandoned that discussion when we had it on the Talk page. Your RFE says that I was "ignoring ongoing discussion", but the record shows that you were the one ignoring ongoing discussion. The admins don't like when we discuss article content here, but I hope you can go to either of the two places where the article is being discussed, to explain why your rollback should not be reverted. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending myself, I'm just pointing out the shortcomings of your report and the misleading statements you made. As for the reasons of my revert my points are raised on the t/p, there is no reason to repeat them over and over. In short: to make any changes in the article you need to provide reliable sources that supports proposed changes. Marcelus (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

none of the sources identify Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian, but only say that he was born in Ukraine or lived there, which obviousely isn't the same thing – According to my Oxford dictionary, Ukrainian means “a native or inhabitant of Ukraine, or a person of Ukrainian descent,” so not obvious, or to the contrary. I had to respond, but I don’t think this admin discussion should delve into content, because there are so many statements in that discussion that are factually incorrect.

On the other hand, accusing other editors of WP:BADFAITH, this is a rather dishonest description – @Marcelus literally accused me of bad faith:

you tried to mislead the participants in the discussion.[9]
you are manipulating sources and present them dishonestly in order to "win" discussion. Don't do that, it's despicable.[10]
you are driven by ill will and deliberately building dishonest arguments by manipulating sources to win the discussion.[11]
I stopped assuming good faith on his part.[12]

Strangely, after all of this, they immediately at-tagged me in discussion to encourage further engagement.[13] Seems to be thriving on conflict. —Michael Z. 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged you because this comment was both directed at you and the IP user. I still stand by my opinion that your participation in the discussion on t/p Sergei Bortkevich was aimed at misleading users. I justify this by what I have already explained in that discussion. Namely you stated: That's why some reliable sources state his nationality as Ukrainian, or describe him as Ukrainian-born listing a number of sources. Undoubtedly wanting to make an impression, Bortkiewicz's Ukrainianness is something commonly accepted in the literature. However, after my verification, it turned out that of the 8 sources you mentioned, none of them describe Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian, and only one describes him as "Ukraine-born". Moreover, two of these sources clearly stated that Bortkiewicz could not be identified as Ukrainian and never had such self-identification. More details can be found in my later comment on a t/p. Initially, I thought you simply failed to check these sources, pasting the results from google. However, your refusal to admit mistake and attempts to deceive led me to believe that you were acting in bad faith from the start. What's more, your comment here reinforces that belief all the more. Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:2603:8000:3D3D:9C80:F1AD:988A:E618:E9C0 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Page protected)

User being reported: 2603:8000:3D3D:9C80:F1AD:988A:E618:E9C0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Johnny Hardwick."
00:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Johnny Hardwick."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Page protected by User:Ivanvector Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the user was blocked 31 hours by User:ScottishFinnishRadish. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.212.64.192 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Already blocked)

User being reported: 72.212.64.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 00:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) to 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
1. 00:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "September 21 or December 31?"
2. 00:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
3. 00:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
4. 00:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
5. 00:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
6. 00:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
7. 00:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Death */"
8. 00:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Death */"
9. 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Death */"
10. 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Death */"
11. 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
12. 00:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Johnny Hardwick."
00:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mel Brooks."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Already blocked Lourdes got them earlier today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Eppstein reported by User:Altenmann (Result: David advised not to repeat this; page protected)

Revert was in the lede. I started a discussion, which was interspersed with personal attacks challenging my knowledge rather than arguments. Even my sompromise solution: tag rather than text removal, - was reverted (with an insult in edit summary), without reaching consensus it talk page. - Altenmann >talk 01:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Previous version reverted to: Point location: Difference between revisions[reply]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Point location#Mouse click location

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I have stopped after Liz raised the issue on my talk page, several hours before this report was made, and will escalate to 3rd-party opinions or drama boards rather than continuing to revert myself if Altenmann continues their tendentious edits. The WP:IDHT accusations are entirely based on Altenmann's non-responsiveness to discussion points made on the article talkpage and continuing to edit-war to remove the material in question without showing any evidence of understanding the discussion. It is not a personal attack to point out problematic behavior within a discussion where that problematic behavior is happening. Meanwhile, I hardly think it is fair to count as a revert an edit that supplies a requested citation and in addition significantly improves the other sourcing on the article in question. It is also a misrepresentation of the situation to say that "my sompromise solution: tag rather than text removal, - was reverted". It was not "tag rather than text removal". It was "tag and remove the source that I had added". It was not a compromise. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see, Eppstein continues personal attacks even here. Just the same, I could write "Eppstein's non-responsiveness to discussion points" and "without showing any evidence of understanding the discussion". - Altenmann >talk 02:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The difference is that you can read my comments on the talk and see explanations. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The difference is that you can read my comments on the talk , but cannot see explanations. Also, not a single time I insulted your expertise while being just as frustrated as you are. - Altenmann >talk 03:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe only two editors are involved in the back-and-forth at the article so it is impossible for only one editor to be edit warring. @Altenmann: Do not use cute edit summaries for example, sorry, prof, did you happen to read and understand the article you cited?. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 3RR is about " recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." And I stopped warring a while ago and started talking, but my esteemed colleague couldn't help but revert me one more time. - Altenmann >talk 03:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cute edits: My bad. But I did see lots of refbombing in my life and did lots of fixing of misreading of sources cited. And I did have an impression that the colleague had read only the summary of the article cited. Anyway, I should have known better to be more specific and not to be a smart aleck. - Altenmann >talk 03:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should also have not violated WP:AGF re my use of sources. Also, for someone complaining about "personal attacks" in this very thread, your hints in this comment that my edits are "refbombing" and "misreading of sources" also cut very close to that line, perhaps on the wrong side of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David, you are experienced, and I guess you already know where you went wrong. Your tenure here as a respected administrator perhaps would behoove the community expectation that you will not cross 3RR again. I understand these words could come out as patronising, but that is not the intention. It's more an advise from a friendly admin that we don't want your name popping up in ANEW or Arbcom reports with respect to behaviour not expected of administrators.
Altenmann, to be honest, pushing a page-name move while actively edit-warring was a move you perhaps knew could antagonise David, and therefore, in my opinion, a well-laid out step to push him. I cannot fault you, as I understand the heat of the moment editorial actions. But you could have started with an RM discussion earlier itself than start with the page move itself (as I said, I am not faulting you; just sharing that it looked more of a bait in my opinion). I could be wrong, but do view this as a point of view you could consider in the future. I am closing this here. Lourdes 06:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at the moment I thought it was an uncontroversial move. - Altenmann >talk 07:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lourdes: your close appears to have been premature. As soon as you did it, Altenmann immediately went back to the same point of the article and restored the disputed [citation needed] tag, also continuing to mischaracterize my edits as original research in the edit summary: Special:Diff/1170299076. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Lourdes: Wrong desciption of the course of events: without reaching any consensus Eppstein edited the disputed text to even a more inadmissible form, and I tagged the new part in it I find highly dubious, i.e., I did not "restore" tag. I would suggest reverting the article to the "wrong version" until the dust settles. By the way, removing dispute tags from articles before resolution is an improper behavior, I would think.- Altenmann >talk 07:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What dispute tag did I remove? Diff, please? I moved cleanup banner unrelated to this dispute from the lead of the article to the one remaining section where it still applied. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Due to the content dispute, I have fully protected the article for a week. Please continue discussions on the talk page and use the edit protected template to request for edits post consensus. Thank you both. Lourdes 07:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Despite Altenmann's distractions the article is now in significantly better shape than before this dispute, because the dispute caused me to notice its other sourcing problems and fix them. That cleanup effort will now stop, perforce. I hope you're happy with that outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paulwalsh13 reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: Page protected and editor blocked partially from the article for 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ivanhoe_Grammar_School&oldid=1169618654

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

{{subst:void|You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulwalsh13

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulwalsh13#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:
Reported for constantly removing a paragraph that reflects negatively on the school. This user is very clearly closely tied to Ivanhoe Grammar School, as they have repeatedly tried in the past to turn the article into a piece of marketing for the school, such as this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ivanhoe_Grammar_School&diff=prev&oldid=960676541 which makes references to "the colours of OUR uniform", as well as clear praise-filled marketing material about past and present headmasters. They also often change staff members with no citations.

In terms of the editing, they have removed this content now 4 times, with anonymous IPs removing the exact same content twice only 10 minutes prior to PaulWalsh13 beginning to do so. The content is a short paragraph mentioning the Fair Work commission, and is fully cited.

In terms of resolving this, I have attempted on 3 occasions to talk with PaulWalsh13 on their talk page, but received no response. They have also never responded to any comments made in edit summaries. GraziePrego (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for reference, the user hasn't edited outside the said article. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from the article (WP:PBLOCK). I had considered indefinitely p-blocking because from what I can see there is some kind of issue with every edit they've made to this page, which is the only page they've edited. Hopefully they can take this time to use the talk page and explain the reasoning why they feel the content needs to be changed in their preferred way. I've also semi-protected the article since an IP was making the same edits. - Aoidh (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:User3456789123 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Partially blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24] [25]

Comments:

Looks like a WP:SPA, bent on removing anything with the word "Arab(ic)" in this GA article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week from the article. If they do not engage or change their conduct, that term will lengthen or become a siteblock. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:14C:8001:ABD0:27E9:EC25:4942:1D65 reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments:

The unregistered user I've complained and had action taken against 4 times: [37], [38], [39], [40]; has retured to edit-warring. This time on other pages now that they can't edit war on List of programs broadcast by The CW, List of Amazon Freevee original programming and List of Peacock original programming.

Like I said in past protecting pages or simply briefly blockimg their range is useless, they always quickly return to edit-warring and endlessly do it. I earlier believed they were simply disruptive and edit-warring, but they left a vandal comment in one of their recent edits. They've also been active more than usual today, maybe because I revert them quickly. This suggests to me the user might be vandalising with his reverts too.

They earlier had the IP range 2600:4040:2800::/40, but somehow have now shifted to 2601:14C:8001::/40. I examined the range and it seems that most of the recent edits are theirs, and those from others now and in past are low. So blocking the range won't impact many innocent users and I'm only asking for a 6 month anon editing ban on the range anyway, not a full block, allowing people to keep editing through accounts. Protecting pages or brief blocks of ranges won't work. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't originally intend to complain here btw, but the possible vandalism and getting tired of the user changed my mind. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. Both Nurses (Canadian TV series) and Transplant (TV series) semi-protected for 2 weeks. Aoidh (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's really pointless User:Aoidh. They've resumed edit-warring on pages after protection expire which they've done with List of programs broadcast by The CW and others in past. Or they'll just move on to new pages. I even mentioned this in my complaint.

Please block the range's anon editing, the protection isn't of use. I'm really tired of them, I request you to please listen. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they are not the only IP editors editing under that range I'm not going to block the range for an extended period of time when, as you have pointed out, they have moved to new ranges before. Your proposed solution would not work and would affect unrelated editors. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aoidh This is a LTA. I can't keep playing whack-a-mole with them on multiple articles. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It being LTA only highlights that a rangeblock would be ineffective. The contributions of 2601:14C:8001::/40 show that they've been active on that range for 3 days, so blocking that range would only result in them moving to a new range and the IP editors trying to edit on that range (infrequent though it may be) now finding themselves unable to edit. That's not a viable solution, and is whack-a-mole of a different kind. They can't change IPs to edit these articles for now, whereas under your proposed solution they could (and from what I'm seeing, would). - Aoidh (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aoidh Please extend the pages' protection to a month or six months then, whichever you think is best. That should hopefully discourage them. I'll just request RFPP from now about them. Linkin Prankster (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this activity on these two pages in particular started this month I think 2 weeks is a good start to see if it continues after resumption, to see how long a subsequent protection would be needed, if at all. I'll keep an eye on it but if it resumes after expiration, you can request at WP:RFPP or ping me directly and it will be reapplied for a much longer period. If any admin reading this thinks a longer initial protection period would work better please feel free to do so. - Aoidh (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aoidh There's little point in that. It's your job to handle edit-warring users but you've decided to let them keep causing disruption as usual. I'll just ask RFPP. Linkin Prankster (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize that it wasn't handled the way you wanted it done, but it was handled, and your specific request for a lengthy rangeblock wasn't feasible for the reasons given above. As for the point of the length of the protection, per the Wikipedia:Protection policy The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible so if 2 weeks works, great! If not, it is trivially simple for an administrator to reapply protection for a longer period if needed. - Aoidh (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aoidh It's not about what I want, but the editor won't stop with brief protections. It's simply getting tiresome. The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible, and the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes. Since brief protections won't stop him, extended ones are proper.

He hasn't stopped in past when pages have been protected for a brief while. I don't know why you refuse to understand that. He'll resume the behavior again and I'll have to complain him again and again. So please tell me how many times should I keep complaining until he's put a stop to? Linkin Prankster (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but the issue now is your response to the articles being protected for 2 weeks instead of the 1 month you requested; between you've decided to let them keep causing disruption as usual and I don't know why you refuse to understand that (neither of which are true), I am not going to engage with that behavior and I am going to respectfully step away from this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my behavior seemed rude, but that guy has caused me immense frustration. He won't stop and admins aren't doing much about it honestly. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I've been in that exact situation where I was frustrated and felt like the admins I reported it to weren't doing enough, but as admins we need to balance stopping disruption with making sure articles and ranges aren't protected beyond what they need to be, so that other editors aren't prevented unduly from being able to edit as well. If 2 weeks isn't enough and disruption resumes I will accept an "I told you so" and you can ping me or leave me a message on my talk page and I'll make sure to address it personally. - Aoidh (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but I've already seen him shift to edit-warring on other pages when he can't do it on the ones he used to do anymore. If that happens I'll contact you, I hope you'll help and take stricter action. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meral Ekincioglu2023 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Sock blocked)

User being reported: Meral Ekincioglu2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

22:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) "Response"
22:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) "Follow-up"
09:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* August 2023 */ how to see article creator"
14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "follow-up about removal of sourced info, started discussion on article's Talk page"
14:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ayla Karacabey."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

14:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of sourced content */ new section"
14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of sourced content */ how to see the details of the original editor"

Comments:

This editor is a subject expert on Ayla Karacabey. She is unhappy both about her published research being used in the article, and also about the article not recognising her work prominently enough. There has been discussion with her on her Talk page and on the article's Talk page. I and other editors have responded and directed her to WP:EXPERT, and given her a Welcome with links to tutorials and guidance. The editor has been responding but is still edit warring. Tacyarg (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lmagoutas reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

User being reported: Lmagoutas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "In the talk page you are very condescending towards the person who is suggesting a very reasonable change in wording based on sources that are not so one sided as the one you try to attach here. This seems to be anything but a fact, but to the minds of some Wikipedia editors."
22:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "Tenuous connection that doesn't need to be in the first paragraph."
22:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "Tenuous POV pushing connection that has no meaning in the first paragraph."
21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "The connections made later to establish this are tenuous to say at best, there is absolutely no need for this designation to be in the first paragraph."
21:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) "No source for that and very POV pushing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They are removing well-sourced content which has been discussed on the talk page several times. Last time was just a few days ago, though they ignore the arguments provided by other editors, including an admin, to be "aggressive". Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert [42]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gracias95 reported by User:Bocafan76 (Result: Pblocked)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [48]

Comments:
The user Gracias95 keeps on adding a trophy that Messi didn't win, I try to explain this to him as well as other users, but he continues with his edit war, also this is not the first time he has done this on the same article, he did previously on December of last year 1, 2, I also mention to him that there was a WP:Consensus at the article talk page, plus I later found out that there was another consensus at WP:FOOTY, not to include this trophy. Lastly this is user that was previously block for edit warning at another article. Thanks in Advance Bocafan76 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Blocked from Lionel Messi. They've been told about this enough times. Black Kite (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:AzorzaI reported by User:Durraz0 (Result: Blocked for two weeks)

Diffs of the user's reverts: [49] (reverted that edit by user Maleschreiber [50]) [51] (reverted that edit by user Uniacademic [52]) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Comments:
A month ago AzorzaI was warned for breaching 3RR on another article [54] by @Lourdes:. AzorzaI today breached 1RR on Kosovo, although when one wants to revert the banner on the top of the page makes it clear that the article is under 1RR. AzorzaI has also been reverting every day since August 3 on Battle of Kosovo, where they have made around 12 reverts against 6 editors. This 1RR breach is just the latest episode of an edit-warring problem. Durraz0 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durraz0, thanks for the report. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Enforcement_of_restrictions: AzorzaI was not formally aware of these sanctions, so they can't be sanctioned. I have now informed them about the issue. You may like to use WP:AE to report future violations of such restrictions.
Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: what about the slow edit-warring, how can it be stopped? After the warning they got for breaching 3RR, they resorted to slow edit-warring. On Battle of Kosovo they have been reverting every day since August 3. They even edit-warred on my talk page to force me to have a "warning" for others to see [55]

. Edit-warring does not need to be 4 within 24 hours to be called edit-warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the alert template you gave them is about Kurds, not the Balkans which our articles concern. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that rule, but it is now noted. Thanks for the heads up, @ToBeFree. As for these two editors, they have previously been reported for tag teaming - and this case is really no different if you examine it. Unless an Admin would want me to elaborate regarding this report, I consider my part done. --Azor (talk). 21:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Tu quoque usually doesn't work here; if there are separate issues, please report them separately. Perhaps at WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Ktrimi991, I have now added an alert about the Balkans and Eastern Europe topic area.

Regarding slow edit warring, I think we can agree that AzorzaI has now been clearly warned and acknowledged having read the warning. If there is a slow-motion edit war going on afterwards, please file a new report that doesn't primarily complain about a 1RR violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree ok, will do. Thanks for changing the alert templates. AzorzaI, feel free to report me to ANI/I for "tag teaming", though another editor who made the same accusation got blocked for personal attacks. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 If I do take the time to report you, it won't be declined in minutes - that's for sure. --Azor (talk). 22:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note For the record, AzorzaI kept edit-warring and got blocked for 2 weeks. Hopefully they will reflect and make use of the talk page and WP:RfC in the future. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xkalponik reported by User:A.Musketeer (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

"Undid revision 1170559966 by আবদুল জলিল সিফাত (talk) NPOV" at 20:33, 15 August 2023
"I hope this resolves the edit war. User:LucrativeOffer, please read my reply to you at WP:RPPI, and the reason you were brawling about, has been met now. I urge you to end this edit war. This is my last revert at 15:39, 15 August 2023‎
"Undid revision 1170517128 by LucrativeOffer (talk). Refrain from starting an edit war. See my reply to you in my talk page. All of my removal were detailed in the edit summaries, read those and discuss in the talk page before reverting my edits again." at 14:42, 15 August 2023
"Restored revision 1170498723 by Nabil (talk): Even after the semi protection of the page, it keeps getting NPOV edits that removes objective statements" at 14:03, 15 August 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Delwar_Hossain_Sayeedi#Disruptive_edits_by_Xkalponik

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:
User has been edit warring to restore his POV. Multiple editors have raised concerns about the POV but the user is unwilling to listen. He was also warned by an admin to refrain from reverting but the edit warring continues. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit war after the admin's advice, I technically did revert আবদুল জলিল সিফাত edit, but I was being bold here. The user changed the page description and I changed it back because it was minor vandalism. And I explicitly mentioned I won't revert back to talk pages until another user's intervention, which occurred. Another third-party user brought back my versions of edits. It's not a question of POV really, just read user LucrativeOffer's version. It was straight-up vandalism/unconstructive edits IMO. They even removed PP-protected (which I myself requested at WP:RPPI) and multiple issues templates. I broke the 3 reverts rule, I realize it with hindsight, but preventing vandalism was my goal, but still, I apologize and I should have been more vigilant about it. Anyone with good judgment may read the previous versions before I made interventions, and will know what I'm talking about. That page was a mess and still needs a lot of work. Anyway, I'm gonna refrain from editing that page anytime soon, I've had enough. X (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the revert just now and have the block dialog open in another tab, but I will let another admin review this. Only diff #1 came after my warning at RFPP not to revert again, and technically that revert was of different content from the content involved in the edit war. But I don't agree that that edit was vandalism: it was probably improper POV, but not vandalism; you even restored part of it, though in slightly different words. And my warning was not against reverting any specific content, nor against reverting other than things you feel should be reverted, it was "the next one of you who reverts will be blocked". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what he said also I wonder why no result was made please put the result as no violation because the edits were not vandalism why did you want report this user when the edits were not vandalism. 2601:981:4401:1CC0:10D5:634:BC3C:F022 (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Satya Sunshodhak reported by User:Cyberwolf434344 (Result: Already blocked)

User being reported: Satya Sunshodhak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 19:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) to 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
1. 19:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Social status */"
2. 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Origin */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Manual reverts •Cyberwolf• 19:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked by Courcelles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fodient reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: No violation)

User being reported: Fodient (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1170698156 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"
03:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1170595788 by BlueboyLINY (talk) No one is claiming it is a radio guide, this is common among other media."
Consecutive edits made from 00:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) to 00:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
1. 00:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Weekday programming */"
2. 00:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Weekday programming */"
00:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Weekdays */ Created a table with the weekday lineup"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The list of reverts is messed up. Fodient has reverted 3x.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. I have reverted twice. Fodient (talk) Fodient (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Fodient is correct. They have reverted only twice. The first set of consecutive edits is not a revert as it added new material to the article. Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards